When is Hi-Res not really Hi-Res?

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
I love tape machines, and own several, but even the best tape machines don't quite get to the level of CD/Red book.

So the question is why do you own them if digital is so satisfying?

What I like about the tapes I have heard is the solidity of the sound. It sounds more realistic and organic. Sure there are things that digital does better but they just are not as important to me overall.
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
So the question is why do you own them if digital is so satisfying?

Historical interest - and watching the rotating tape reels is wonderfully hypnotic :)

What I like about the tapes I have heard is the solidity of the sound. It sounds more realistic and organic. Sure there are things that digital does better but they just are not as important to me overall.

Funny enough, it seems I can probably recreate that "realistic and organic sound" by adding a bit of distortion and EQ to a pure, digital signal.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
Historical interest - and watching the rotating tape reels is wonderfully hypnotic :)



Funny enough, it seems I can probably recreate that "realistic and organic sound" by adding a bit of distortion and EQ to a pure, digital signal.

When I was a kid, no stylish pad was ever seen without a gorgeous reel-to-reel machine on show. I still lust after them.
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
When I was a kid, no stylish pad was ever seen without a gorgeous reel-to-reel machine on show. I still lust after them.

Of course - it's just so visually and physically gorgeous. Even better than vinyl record players, that have some of that same magic. But no way I would pretend either sounds better than digital.

What I really want is one of the old computer "random access" tape units - having grown up in an era when moves showed computers with tape drives spinning back and forth (leading to random association - forth was the fourth programming language I learned:) ).
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Funny enough, it seems I can probably recreate that "realistic and organic sound" by adding a bit of distortion and EQ to a pure, digital signal.

Whatever floats your boat. Everyone has their preferences.

If you can come up with a program that will make digital sound like good analog then I suggest you market it. You would make a killing.
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Whatever floats your boat. Everyone has their preferences.

It isn't my preference - I prefer accurate reproduction.

If you can come up with a program that will make digital sound like good analog then I suggest you market it. You would make a killing.

There are already a bunch of plug-ins for the more popular audio processing programs for that, as well as several digital effects boxes for studio and live use. But you are right, there does seem to be a market specifically for audiophiles, judging by the success of DSD, tube output DACs and filterless NOS DACS.
 

Ronm1

Member Sponsor
Feb 21, 2011
1,745
4
0
wtOMitMutb NH
What I really want is one of the old computer "random access" tape units - having grown up in an era

Nothing better than banks of 7/9 track drives doing a tape sort. Noise and lights.
 

opus111

Banned
Feb 10, 2012
1,286
3
0
Hangzhou, China
But you are right, there does seem to be a market specifically for audiophiles, judging by the success of DSD, tube output DACs and filterless NOS DACS.

If you happen to be looking for realistic and organic then filtered NOS beats the pants off filterless. But I rather suspect you're not ;)
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
If you happen to be looking for realistic and organic then filtered NOS beats the pants off filterless. But I rather suspect you're not ;)

Opus. Everyone's definition of realistic and organic seems to differ. So I will pursue mine and you guys can pursue yours.;)
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
I'm not sure that 'definitions' are what matters here - rather meanings. Some value 'realistic and organic' and there are others who seek to mock those using the phrase.

Got it. I was not sure who you were addressing in your previous post. I'm not sure why some people feel it necessary to mock others. I guess it makes them feel better about themselves.
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
I'm not sure that 'definitions' are what matters here - rather meanings. Some value 'realistic and organic' and there are others who seek to mock those using the phrase.

"Realistic" is something I like in my system, if "realistic" means "as close as possible to the real, original input signal" or "as close as possible to the original live sound". "Organic" is a bit more difficult. What does "organic" mean in the context of music? "forms, methods and patterns found in living systems", "conducted according to certain standards, especially the use of stated methods of fertilization and pest control", "matter that has come from a once-living organism, is capable of decay or the product of decay, or is composed of organic compound" or "related to an organ"? Or are you perhaps referring to the Joe Cocker album. :)

Just to be clear - I am not mocking you, just pointing out what audioarcher already stated - definitions (and meanings) do matter, and without common agreement about what the terms mean, we could just as well describe the sound quality as "mauve".
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Nothing better than banks of 7/9 track drives doing a tape sort. Noise and lights.

Ah, yes... Too bad I don't have the space (and probably couldn't afford the power bill)...
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
http://www.otari.com/product/recorder/mx5050/spec.html

OK, so looking at one of the few modern tape machines, SNR is given as about 70dB, frequency response 30-20 kHz +/- 2dB, THD 0.3%, crosstalk 55dB, bias frequency 133 kHz.

I don't know how this compares with true 'state of the art', but it does seem measurably less good on paper than an average digital system. And is the effect of the bias oscillator remotely similar to that of digital sampling wrt aliasing? It looks as though it is not completely unrelated.

Can anyone point me to a true state of the art tape machine that is manufactured today?
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
http://www.otari.com/product/recorder/mx5050/spec.htmlOK, so looking at one of the few modern tape machines, SNR is given as about 70dB, frequency response 30-20 kHz +/- 2dB, THD 0.3%, crosstalk 55dB, bias frequency 133 kHz.

Sounds like pretty typical values. The SNR is the equivalent of a 12 bit resolution, while the THD level corresponds to something like 9 bits (but the THD value is not very representative, as it is largely harmonic distortion that isn't very audible).
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
Sounds like pretty typical values. The SNR is the equivalent of a 12 bit resolution, while the THD level corresponds to something like 9 bits (but the THD value is not very representative, as it is largely harmonic distortion that isn't very audible).

Can we see from the spec whether the THD value is for a sine wave recorded at full scale, or is it likely that it is recorded at a lower level and that full scale signals are distorted more? (And HD -> IMD doesn't it?)

There's an article here with measurements of FR curves on a variety of real machines.
http://www.endino.com/graphs/

It's funny how different people can get different ideas into their heads concerning particular technologies. My vision of state-of-the-art digital recording (or photography or video) is one of perfect clarity, colour, detail, and no lack of "organic-ness". I've been playing with digital audio since 1982-ish when it most definitely was not like that! 8 bit processing was not acceptable, for sure, but I once applied analogue companding noise reduction to 8 bit processing, and it was a revelation. Raw 12 bit digital was almost acceptable. At the same time I was playing with a most-definitely non-state of the art Teac A3440 machine, so I had no romantic notions of the sacred-ness of analogue quality. So in my mind, while home made digital circuitry was almost acceptable, commercial (and fairly expensive) analogue recording was not all that much better. Once 16 bit recording became standard I was ready to be convinced by the perfection of digital. But then on top of that along came 24 bit, and then oversampling ADCs, 192 kHz and dither! Had I come at this from the other direction, I might have got different notions into my head regarding the physical form of the equipment somehow reflecting the audio quality of the medium, or some such.
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Can we see from the spec whether the THD value is for a sine wave recorded at full scale, or is it likely that it is recorded at a lower level and that full scale signals are distorted more?

The THD figures are usually quoted at nominal maximum output, but as with most analog things, there is usually a fair bit of headroom above that (but with rapidly increasing distortion).

It's funny how different people can get different ideas into their heads concerning particular technologies. My vision of state-of-the-art digital recording (or photography or video) is one of perfect clarity, colour, detail, and no lack of "organic-ness". I've been playing with digital audio since 1982-ish when it most definitely was not like that! 8 bit processing was not acceptable, for sure, but I once applied analogue companding noise reduction to 8 bit processing, and it was a revelation. Raw 12 bit digital was almost acceptable. At the same time I was playing with a most-definitely non-state of the art Teac A3440 machine, so I had no romantic notions of the sacred-ness of analogue quality. So in my mind, while home made digital circuitry was almost acceptable, commercial (and fairly expensive) analogue recording was not all that much better. Once 16 bit recording became standard I was ready to be convinced by the perfection of digital. But then on top of that along came 24 bit, and then oversampling ADCs, 192 kHz and dither! Had I come at this from the other direction, I might have got different notions into my head regarding the physical form of the equipment somehow reflecting the audio quality of the medium, or some such.

Right - I remember how a lot of the electronic instruments such as samplers and synthesizers from the 80's were 12 bits at best - and even 8 bits isn't that bad if you use adaptive PCM (logarithmic compression) such as G.711.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
It's funny that when CD came along, a lot of audio people thought that it was the bee's knees, only to later, apparently, become dis-illusioned by it. This tells me that it can't have been shockingly bad to start with. But then came all that better understanding of digital audio and some 'paradigm leaps' in the technology. Yet people still claim to be hearing the same problems that only gradually became apparent to them in about 1987, but which must now, surely, be reduced in significance by a factor several thousand..?
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
the THD value is not very representative, as it is largely harmonic distortion that isn't very audible.

What I meant to say was "low-order harmonic distortion", somehow a crucial word got left out...
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
If you happen to be looking for realistic and organic then filtered NOS beats the pants off filterless.

Well, there has to be a filter somewhere in that chain. The reconstruction filter is an essential part of the DAC process. If you leave it out of the DAC, you are relying on your amp and speaker to perform that function, and the results will be pretty unpredictable.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing